Typical neo-liberal mentality. Keep voting until they vote the right way. Then, no more votes.

I heard this comment about Brexit.

It is actually quite typical of another trend:

Lie shamelessly and have a vote without people having the information for an informed choice. Then protect that uninformed vote by telling the people that somehow it insults them and disrespects them to get to review that decision once they realize that they have been had. It is the ultimate in cherry-picking support for democracy.

I am not sure which point you are claiming -- that the brexiters want no more votes or that the pro Europe people are asking for one more. The point is that people want voting to stop when they get their answer, however, the issue of whether people had the information and if the vote was legitimate (which in many ways it seems it was not) should be part of it.

How do you trick the people and then say that the result of that trickery has to be maintained to say you respect them?

You could say that about any referendum, or election for that matter. There's always misinformation.

My reference was to the votes to enter the EU in various countries in the 1990s and 2000s. After no votes, revotes were held because the powers that be wanted to enter. This is similar here.

If there is a second vote that narrowly goes for remain, will there be call for a third vote? And if there is one, will the same people calling for a revote now, agree to a revote then?

Why should they if the rationale for this new vote is the fact that people were decieved, rules of finance broken and new information available? If these conditions are not repeated why would people ask for a do-over? By saying what you are saying you are trying to deny the real issues behind why people are asking for a second vote.

By the same token if brexit can win a vote now without cheating, fudging finance votes, and with the information now available then that should be conclusive -- for the time being. But what if the people decide ten years from now to rejoin? Should they not have that right? Should the twentysomethings of 2030 have no right because of the decision made by their parents?

This argument you make seems designed to minimize the severe problems of the first vote and the incorrect factual basis (bluntly put - lies) that vote was made on. It also denies the principle that votes are not permanent but reflections of the direction the people want now.

You also seem to want to deny that contexts change and the right of a people should not expire at the first vote. It is not democratic to have one election and then say we will keep the result for ever even when people learn about the government, the situation changes based on the argument they got to vote a few years ago. The reason we have periodic elections is that the people do have a right to change their minds. They also have the right to as much infomration as possible to decide and when they get more they should get an option again.

Otherwise voting would just be about a single trick and then closing the decision. That is not how a democracy is intended to work.

Should we still have a Harper government now? We voted multiple times on it didn't we? Why should we have had the right to decide differently in 2015? Why should we get to vote again in 2019? Should the 1995 referendum in Quebec been stopped becuase they already decided in 1980? what right do the people have in 1980 to decide for the people of 1995? If we are deciding for all time what new standard should apply for this to be legitimate?

Perhaps we should ahve a standard that says if you win the vote by more than 10% you cannot have a redo in less than ten years? After all a narrow victory could be changed by demographics in one year.

What is wrong with the notion that voters would give the politicians a mandate to negotiate -- which they have used -- and then a say on the product of that negotiation? Looks like with Brexit they definitely had a try at negotiating but it proved not to be as easy as they described in the first vote?

The point about trickery I made you said would apply to any eleciton -- should I presume you think elections ought to be permanent? Should I presume that you do nto think there should be a standard of a revote if there is enough changed or enough issues presented with respect to the first vote? How respectful of a person's decision-making is it really to freeze the first decision they make before they are able to get real infomraiton about the implications?

Those who are asking for a revote are doing so because they want to reverse the results of the first vote. Plain and simple. It is disengenous to argue otherwise. In fact, as I recall, there were calls for a revote within a day or two of the results.

A referendum is different from an election in that it deals with one issue. I would not have a problem with revotes on referendums after, say, a decade or so. But, in this instance, let the results of the referendum be respected, and some sort of brexit take place, before any new vote is undertaken. The UK voted to enter the common market in 1975, and that vote was respected by opponents for decades. Here, proponents of that position barely waited 48 hours before calling for a revote.

More than 200 Constituency Labour Parties are expected this month to support calls for an emergency party conference, aimed at securing support for a second Brexit referendum. But now they’re facing opposition from more than simply a handful of Labour MPs who secretly want Brexit. They’re up against the ghost of Lenin.

quote:

So what’s really going on? The short answer is, a small group of Labour MPs, who for two years claimed they were being forced reluctantly to enact Brexit in order to respect the referendum, were in fact quietly hoping Theresa May could achieve it. Then, went the reasoning, we can get back to the bread and butter issues Labour voters really care about. Now they're panicking because they'll have to explain to their constituents that Brexit cannot happen.

The position of these closet Lexiteers is all the more dishonest because there is a perfectly good left-wing case for Brexit to be made in the open. If the UK had a left government, which clashed with the EU as it tried to enact nationalisations, state aid and reforms to the labour market, that government should defy the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties. That’s Lexit. The problem is, it is not on the agenda.

The actual Brexit project is being driven by neo-imperial fantasists like Johnson and Rees-Mogg, and the social forces supporting Brexit are almost entirely reactionary. The deal May is trying to do will not facilitate a left wing-Brexit. Nor will any deal Labour wants to do. A permanent customs union and “participation in the single market” would be a less damaging outcome than May’s deal. But there is nothing intrinsically left-wing about it.

Lexit, in short, is as much a fantasy as hard Brexit. And in the two years since the referendum, political reality has come to reflect this. The polls show that voters who want Brexit have aligned themselves with the Tories. People who are against it say they will vote Labour, SNP, Plaid, Green or Lib Dem. Like it or not, we have the same incipient culture war here as in the US – and the only way to fight it is the way newbie Congress members Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are doing: with confidence in your own values and in defiance of the prejudices of racist clowns.

The Labour membership sense this. That is why the biggest moment of enthusiasm at last September’s party conference came when shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer assured the membership the party would fight for a second referendum, with Remain on the ballot paper, if an early general election could not be secured. Labour’s active membership are yearning to fight for what they believe in.

So there is a significant disagreement within Labour about the way forward. That’s only a bad thing if, like Godels in the Morning Star, you don’t believe in party democracy. The way to solve this is democratic debate and, though we’ve already had one in Liverpool, since the facts have changed, and strong views are being expressed on both sides, the answer is even more democracy.

That’s why the call for an emergency half-day conference is sensible. I think Labour could win either an election or a second referendum with a Remain-reform programme. The polling evidence supports that. But I want to hear from long-standing activists in the English regions and in Scotland and Wales about what the risks are. I want to hear from the industrial sections and regional activists of the major unions, not just what their full-time officers have been reading in the Morning Star.

Let’s understand what is at stake. The cynical view is that pro-Remain voters have nowhere to go but Labour, and nothing will be lost if a few thousand old Blairite members and councillors clear off with Chuka Umunna when he forms his new party. People who believe this also tend to believe, irrationally, that all the polls are wrong, or “being manipulated” to dupe Labour into supporting Remain on false evidence.

I think these assumptions are dangerous. If a new centrist party were formed it would not only get a media fanfare from the BBC and Sky but could appeal to the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed up to the People’s Vote campaign. Its chances of success would be massively amplified if Labour’s leadership became visibly detached from the political sentiments and values of its active left-wing members.

So would the chances of a new centrist leadership challenge against Jeremy Corbyn himself. The Brown and Blairite wings of the PLP, who understand this, are said to be cock-a-hoop in the corridors of parliament.

The way out is for the PLP to study the polling and listen the party members. After the referendum, Labour had a moral duty to try to make Brexit work, but if no form of Brexit can satisfy the actual Brexiteers, then it’s not Labour’s job to do the impossible.

The position of these closet Lexiteers is all the more dishonest because there is a perfectly good left-wing case for Brexit to be made in the open. If the UK had a left government, which clashed with the EU as it tried to enact nationalisations, state aid and reforms to the labour market, that government should defy the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties. That’s Lexit. The problem is, it is not on the agenda.

And how exactly would they do that without violating those neo-liberal agreements. I can't tell if he's just questioning the timing of a Brexit or Brexit itself. I agree Labour leadership has been less than forthcoming, as they try to tap dance while retaining Brexit supporters vital to holding seats in the North. But coming out in support of another referendum before another election would likely the doom the party, and any chance for a ""lexit."

As far as "no place to go," Remainers could always go to the LDs. while Leavers could go to UKIP. Hence, the wisdom of the Labour leadership avoiding taking a hard stance one way or the other before a new election.

..labour's problem is it can't force an election. no election no lexit. meanwhile a referendum will go forward because the tories will have nowhere else to go when they can't pass their brexit deal or no deal. imho. the risk that mason points out is that labour's present position will come out losing that referendum. worth repeating..mason says the membership is more in tune with this than the leadership.

however, the issue of whether people had the information and if the vote was legitimate (which in many ways it seems it was not) should be part of it.

Whether the vote was legitimate should not be part of it, it should be all of it.

If a court declares the original vote to be illegitimate, democracy would demand that the results be set aside and a new vote held.

But if a court does not declare the original vote to be illegitimate, the results should stand.

Just curious, though. In a sentence or two, what was the "lie" or "lies" that you feel renders the original vote null and void? Were they material lies ("There's a ten billion dollar annual fee for membership in the EU") or aspirational lies ("if we leave the EU, everyone will be happier")?

however, the issue of whether people had the information and if the vote was legitimate (which in many ways it seems it was not) should be part of it.

Whether the vote was legitimate should not be part of it, it should be all of it.

If a court declares the original vote to be illegitimate, democracy would demand that the results be set aside and a new vote held.

But if a court does not declare the original vote to be illegitimate, the results should stand.

Just curious, though. In a sentence or two, what was the "lie" or "lies" that you feel renders the original vote null and void? Were they material lies ("There's a ten billion dollar annual fee for membership in the EU") or aspirational lies ("if we leave the EU, everyone will be happier")?

I disagree with the principle that results should stand if the population no longer wants them. A referendum is not a binding future contract. It is a present expression of the people on a matter the government sought specific direction on. In any circumstance where there is an obstacle proceeding AND there is good reason to suspect that the population is in a different position due to new information or a change in circumstances, it is not illegitimate to appeal to the population once again for new instructions.

We can also consider what these different types of votes are -- in the case of elections, these are representative democratic functions where an expression of support is given to a group of people's future judgment - representatives. This is why they are for a specific term.

Referenda are examples of direct democracy and represent specific and present instructions on a given topic and option. Direct democracy is not based on any confidence in the judgment of those presented with changing circumstances but a specific answer to a specific question. In this case either changing circumstances, new information or a change of heart by the population makes a new vote valid.

The reason they are not reheld frequently is due to the fact that nothing is presumed to have changed: the population has not changed its mind and the evidence presented at the time has not been discredited and the circumstances have not changed.

It is disrespectful to the people to refuse to allow the population to update this direction when circumstances changed, the knowledge presented at the time has changed, the vote legitimacy is questioned, and the intention of the vote is frustrated -- as is the present case. Those who pretend to represent respect for voters by refusing them a new say in this context are disengenious at best.

I disagree with the principle that results should stand if the population no longer wants them.

But we don't know that the population no longer wants them. And please don't say that they should therefore have another referendum to find out -- there's literally no natural end to that. As josh suggested, if they held another referendum and "remain" squeaked by, how would we know, six months from now, whether that's what the public "really" wanted? The only reasonable answer would be a third referendum.

The people voted. It's inappropriate to undo that because of the loudness of the losing side, or some private polls or a gut feeling.

Another one in ten years, though? Sure. Different electorate, different world, and the voters will actually have had a chance to experience what they voted for two years ago. I'm certainly not suggesting that there must never, ever be another vote after there's been one, but another vote two years later, when the UK hasn't even left the EU yet, isn't "democracy in action", it's a "do over" because some people -- it's alleged -- are suffering some buyer's regret. You're talking as though it's clear that the UK has had a change of heart, but what I'm reading is people who voted "remain" demanding an opportunity to vote "remain" again, and hoping more will join them this time.

Again, if the vote was illegitimate, let the courts say why. Isn't that how we generally handle allegations of campaign irregularities?

I disagree with the principle that results should stand if the population no longer wants them.

But we don't know that the population no longer wants them. And please don't say that they should therefore have another referendum to find out -- there's literally no natural end to that. As josh suggested, if they held another referendum and "remain" squeaked by, how would we know, six months from now, whether that's what the public "really" wanted? The only reasonable answer would be a third referendum.

The people voted. It's inappropriate to undo that because of the loudness of the losing side, or some private polls or a gut feeling.

Another one in ten years, though? Sure. Different electorate, different world, and the voters will actually have had a chance to experience what they voted for two years ago. I'm certainly not suggesting that there must never, ever be another vote after there's been one, but another vote two years later, when the UK hasn't even left the EU yet, isn't "democracy in action", it's a "do over" because some people -- it's alleged -- are suffering some buyer's regret. You're talking as though it's clear that the UK has had a change of heart, but what I'm reading is people who voted "remain" demanding an opportunity to vote "remain" again, and hoping more will join them this time.

Again, if the vote was illegitimate, let the courts say why. Isn't that how we generally handle allegations of campaign irregularities?

And do you have any info on those "lies"?

Since you ignored the rest of my post that laid out the answer in detail, you clearly do not want the answer.

There is considerable evidence that:

1) the information the Brexit vote relied on is much less than the population has today

2) There were issues related to rules being followed and misrepresentation that was widely believed during that time that is no longer believed. There are legitimate quesitons of manipulation.

3) the circumstances have changed significantly

4) The government has proven unable to bring about the kind of negotiation that was supported by the vote -- in other words the direction of that vote has been frustrated (to use the contract term) such that the government is deadlocked and cannot proceed and has no option to give the people that would represent the kind of Brexit they voted for

This is not some example of the losers wanting a redo. The world of Brexit sold to the public at that time has little in common with the choices presented today.

The discussion should not be seen as a left right issue. The right are famous for advocating Brexit but there are arguments from the left in favour as well -- that does not change the fact that the basis for the referendum result might want to be questioned. There are some statements in the below 2016 article that probably still ring true and there are others that might be seen to have changed somewhat. Any new debate on Brexit should include left debate on both leave and remain sides as there are many from the left who would debate either side.

"What Brexit ultimately boils down to is - Do we want to be ruled by our own government who we can vote in or out? Or do we want to be ruled by Brussels and people we can't vote in or out?"

And there you have it : a denial that Britain gets a vote in Brussels. Now wonder people talk about Brexit lies.

The UK has 73 members in the EU parliament that it gets to vote in or out. It has almost 10% of the parliamentarians. The biggest single national block is Germany with just less than 13%. The UK is tied for third with Italy. France has 0.2% more. Its position in a group of 28 countries is one of the strongest.

Also it is not as if the UK government does not have powers. The EU is a cooperative where some jurisdiction is shared but is is not as if they are ruled by Brussels or if they are ruled anymore than any other country in the EU.

The tweet has some small truth but is misleading at best. So it is not about cutting through the bullshit but rather the icing on a bullshit cake.

1) the information the Brexit vote relied on is much less than the population has today

Well, logically I can't see how it would be less now, rather than more. Two years is two years. But what is this information? That Brussels isn't in the business of granting wishes?

If I pumped my life savings into bitcoin two years ago, I'd have "new information" now too, but the drop in value doesn't invalidate my decision two years ago. That's life.

Quote:

There are legitimate quesitons of manipulation.

As I've said, UK courts should provide the legitimate answers to those questions. Would you agree?

Quote:

the circumstances have changed significantly

Ya, again, it's been two years. If the UK held a do-over right now, things would change again by 2021. And yet again by 2023.

Quote:

such that the government is deadlocked and cannot proceed and has no option to give the people that would represent the kind of Brexit they voted for

Nonsense. The question was simply "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union". The question did not specify what type of Brexit it would be, and realistically, could not have. Even if the UK ends up with a "hard" brexit, the people who voted to leave will get what they voted for.

And there you have it : a denial that Britain gets a vote in Brussels. Now wonder people talk about Brexit lies.

Would that vote be sufficient to give the UK the right to do whatever they wish to (i.e. rule themselves)? Or could the other member countries of the EU vote for something the UK doesn't want, but must nonetheless accept?

Suggesting that the UK isn't ruling itself when it agrees to abide by EU decisions isn't a "lie", and I hope this isn't the sort of thing you're talking about when you refer to "lies". If Canada's Indigenous communities were to elect a few more MPs, we'd never in a million years pretend that now they have self-governance.

"What Brexit ultimately boils down to is - Do we want to be ruled by our own government who we can vote in or out? Or do we want to be ruled by Brussels and people we can't vote in or out?"

And there you have it : a denial that Britain gets a vote in Brussels. Now wonder people talk about Brexit lies.

The UK has 73 members in the EU parliament that it gets to vote in or out. It has almost 10% of the parliamentarians. The biggest single national block is Germany with just less than 13%. The UK is tied for third with Italy. France has 0.2% more. Its position in a group of 28 countries is one of the strongest.

Also it is not as if the UK government does not have powers. The EU is a cooperative where some jurisdiction is shared but is is not as if they are ruled by Brussels or if they are ruled anymore than any other country in the EU.

The tweet has some small truth but is misleading at best. So it is not about cutting through the bullshit but rather the icing on a bullshit cake.

If Britain wants to undertake certain economic policies, such as nationalizations, it can’t do so under the terms of the EU. This is why members of the left, like Tony Benn, going back to the common market vote in 1975 have opposed the neo-liberal enterprise that puts capital above the right of democratically elected governments to enact economic policy.

There are numerous issues being raised about the original vote, from funding irregularities to Cambridge Analytica malfeance. Much of this is being papered over by the Tories.

There is much more new information. As the details come out it is more clear what the result of an exit will be. Think of making a choice to take the freeway. Turn the corner and you see that the highway is a parking lot from an accident or something (we have to have a hard border with Northern Ireland??). There is an opportunity to take a U-turn, why would you not consider it. I would say that the onus would be on the re-vote camp to come up with clear evidence that the public want another vote. Take NR's Quebec Referendum (or BC's electoral reform), both times there was a citizen's push to relook at the question and they both reached a point where it became politically impossible to "keep doing it until we get the result we want".

I also must question the politics, admittedly not a 'democratic' point.

Scotland and Ireland are being adversely affected, having to give in to the tyranny of the majority.

The key major players are not progressive. Particularly the high number of racists and extreme right.

I have not thought long and hard on this, but outside of left right politics it just feels that splintering will make taking strong action on global warming that much harder.

If a court declares the original vote to be illegitimate, democracy would demand that the results be set aside and a new vote held.

But if a court does not declare the original vote to be illegitimate, the results should stand.

Referendums in the UK are just “advisory” and as such are not legally binding on the UK Parliament. If the UK Parliament feels like it needs more advice from the public, I see no reason why they could not have another referendum to obtain more advice from the public. Also, if it wanted, the UK Parliament could legally ignore the advice they received from the Brexit referendum and notify the EU that the UK intends not to leave the EU.

"What Brexit ultimately boils down to is - Do we want to be ruled by our own government who we can vote in or out? Or do we want to be ruled by Brussels and people we can't vote in or out?"

Western democracy is all bullshit smoke and mirrors anyways. Doesn’t matter which party gets in, or what the questions are on that referendum, 99.999% of everything around you will remain the same for 80-90% of the population.

Western democracy is all bullshit smoke and mirrors anyways. Doesn’t matter which party gets in, or what the questions are on that referendum, 99.999% of everything around you will remain the same for 80-90% of the population.

If this is so, why are you the slightest bit interested in the results of Canadian elections? It seems from other threads that you attach some importance to whether Cons, Libs or NDP form the government here. Why should you even care?

Western democracy is all bullshit smoke and mirrors anyways. Doesn’t matter which party gets in, or what the questions are on that referendum, 99.999% of everything around you will remain the same for 80-90% of the population.

If this is so, why are you the slightest bit interested in the results of Canadian elections? It seems from other threads that you attach some importance to whether Cons, Libs or NDP form the government here. Why should you even care?

Probably the best question I have ever heard on any forum!!! And a question everybody at some point needs to ask. At this point I would have to say that politics or more accurately discussion debate of politics for me does not extend much beyond entertainment, but at times passionete. It is something that I can easily walk away

1) the information the Brexit vote relied on is much less than the population has today

2) There were issues related to rules being followed and misrepresentation that was widely believed during that time that is no longer believed. There are legitimate quesitons of manipulation.

3) the circumstances have changed significantly

4) The government has proven unable to bring about the kind of negotiation that was supported by the vote -- in other words the direction of that vote has been frustrated (to use the contract term) such that the government is deadlocked and cannot proceed and has no option to give the people that would represent the kind of Brexit they voted for

None of your reasons comes close to a legal standard that would justify redoing the referendum. It was valid and it seems to many of us that now that the potential problems with that vote are emerging some people are going; "shit I didn't think the future would be like this so lets have a do over.

..in or out of the eu there is no good way forward. the important thing is that labour's agenda get implemented. if this means labour supports a new vote then gets elected i'm happy. so will the labour party membership by the looks of it.

1) the information the Brexit vote relied on is much less than the population has today

2) There were issues related to rules being followed and misrepresentation that was widely believed during that time that is no longer believed. There are legitimate quesitons of manipulation.

3) the circumstances have changed significantly

4) The government has proven unable to bring about the kind of negotiation that was supported by the vote -- in other words the direction of that vote has been frustrated (to use the contract term) such that the government is deadlocked and cannot proceed and has no option to give the people that would represent the kind of Brexit they voted for

None of your reasons comes close to a legal standard that would justify redoing the referendum. It was valid and it seems to many of us that now that the potential problems with that vote are emerging some people are going; "shit I didn't think the future would be like this so lets have a do over.

Of course not since there is no legal standard to a non-binding referendum which has no legal weight no matter what people want to ascribe to it.

They reach a political and accountability standard which is the point.

The EU doesn’t seem willing to deliver what the pro-Brexit side said the EU would during the referendum. The many lies told during the referendum have come home to roost.

What did the 'leave' side say the EU would deliver?

I'm specifically asking, did they say something like "we promise that the EU will allow us..._______" or some similar?

Or were the leavers merely speculating about the future, as politicians necessarily do? It's pretty hard to hold a politician or party accountable for what someone else does or doesn't do. And if a promise is about what someone else will or won't do, voters would be smart to take that with a grain of salt. You don't get a new vote just because the Mexicans didn't pay for the wall after all.

Quote:

It is a realistc option if a political option cannot be found that respects the intention of the last vote.

Based on the actual question posed to voters, it would appear that the only intention was to leave.

Recently voters in BC had the option to change electoral systems, but the question asked did not imply that if "yes" was chosen, everything would be way better than before. It just offered the option. Similarly, the Brexit question offered no assurances that 'leave' would also mean some universally acceptable solution to the Ireland issue, or whatever.

I wish do overs were available merely because one side provided distorted truths and outright lies but they aren't. Unless it is something the government wants to expend a lot of political capital on a referendum is normally a referendum.

"Manila Chan talks with former UK MP George Galloway on Theresa May's Brexit deal, what her next steps would be if they were defeated, the future of UK's involvement in foreign wars in the wake of Brexit..."

On Saturday, thousands of anti-austerity protesters marched through London calling for a general election and for the removal of the Tory government. For the last few months, business in Parliament and coverage in the media has been focussed almost solely on Brexit. The Tories have practically thrown their manifesto in the bin while they've spent two years doing nothing but deliberating - and consistently failing - over Brexit. Meanwhile, the majority of the people of the country are facing the brunt of austerity.

With an NHS in severe crisis, homeless people dying on the streets and disabled people forced into horrendous situations because of benefit sanctions and universal credit to name just a few of the injustices the Tories are responsible, protesters marched to say enough is enough.

quote:

There was a clear show of solidarity with the working class in France as protesters joined in with chants of "Macron Demission" as well as calling for Theresa May to go. And the Gilets Jaunes brought over their solidarity with two representatives of their movement, Erick Simon and Laurie Martin, addressing the rally in Trafalgar Square and showing their support.

Other speakers included John McDonnell who stressed the importance of people mobilising for a general election. Laura Pidcock MP, Owen Jones and representatives of Unite the Union and a number of organisations across the labour movement addressed the rally.

A small group of fascists attempted to attack the rally and encircle Owen Jones, and one fascist threw a bottle at a steward which resulted in him needing several stitches.

However, the several thousand at the demonstration showed clearly that the yellow vests in Britain is a progressive, anti-austerity and anti-racist movement, and is not represented by a handful of far right thugs.

The People's Assembly has called for regional and local protests the following weekend in a bid to keep the movement on the streets, mobilise people locally in a similar way to the movement in France and to pile on the pressure on the government. One thing is clear: when Parliament is paralysed, what happens on the streets can have a significant impact on the political agenda, and as the failing Tories flounder, we have the ability to bring them down.....

"What Brexit ultimately boils down to is - Do we want to be ruled by our own government who we can vote in or out? Or do we want to be ruled by Brussels and people we can't vote in or out?"

And there you have it : a denial that Britain gets a vote in Brussels. Now wonder people talk about Brexit lies.

The UK has 73 members in the EU parliament that it gets to vote in or out. It has almost 10% of the parliamentarians. The biggest single national block is Germany with just less than 13%. The UK is tied for third with Italy. France has 0.2% more. Its position in a group of 28 countries is one of the strongest.

Also it is not as if the UK government does not have powers. The EU is a cooperative where some jurisdiction is shared but is is not as if they are ruled by Brussels or if they are ruled anymore than any other country in the EU.

The tweet has some small truth but is misleading at best. So it is not about cutting through the bullshit but rather the icing on a bullshit cake.

The UK elects members of the European Parliament(which is why we have the bizarre specter of Nigel Farage continuing to collect a hefty paycheck sitting as a member of a parliamentary body he wants his country to leave), but the European Parliament has no actual power. In fact, it has been described as "a parliament without a government". Actual decision-making power on EU policy is held soley by a small group of non-elected bureaucrats. This is why the EU is still able to impose budgetary requirements on each country that require perpetual austerity, even though most European voters are now staunchly anti-austerity.

The big problem is that there appears to be no way at all to change the way the EU is run, at least not by democratic, electoral means. What happens is what the 1% want and nothing else is permitted.

While there is some mild social liberalism in the EU structure-and for that reason and on anti-xenophobia grounds I'd have voted Remain if I lived in the UK-there is no possiblity at this point to make the EU allow any form of egalitarian, inclusive economic ideas at all.

This is why Jeremy Corbyn could not make a passionate case for Remain-no passionate, egalitarian, democratic case for it exists at all. No possibility of changing the way the EU is run exists at all.

It's just going to be run for the good of corporate power from here on in, as far as I can see.